View Single Post
Old 08-23-2007, 03:23 PM   #11
12thMan
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,460
Re: KENDALL to the Redskins (confirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coff View Post
Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?
I hear what you're saying, Coff and I tend to lean toward your argument some. However, I don't think you can adequately or objectively, for that matter, look at the Kendall acquistion outside of Dockery's departure. Because ultimatetly that's who he's here to replace; Derrick Dockery.

I think if we look at this is as him replacing Pucillo or better than Wade or than this guy or that guy, then the trade looks a little diffferent. The fact that it seems that Wade hasn't worked himself into the line up all that well and we've only seen Pucillo one full game, makes the situation seem as though we've failed at plugging that position. But if we backed this trade up, say, two or three months ago, then it probably doesn't look so bad from a monetary or experience standpoint.

Ask yourself, if we signed this guy two weeks after Dockery left, would I feel the same?
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
 
Page generated in 1.49918 seconds with 10 queries